Will Asia Pacific be torn between the two tigers?

As reported by the Associated Press, during the APEC summit in Vladivostok, the US Secretary of State welcomed Russia's more active Russian role in the Asia-Pacific. Citing an unnamed senior US official traveling with Ms. Clinton, the agency states that the State Secretary is eager to hear what Russian President Vladimir Putin's "goals and ambitions" in the region are and how they might complement US efforts.

The report might seem trivial at first sight – in fact, a "more active role" in the Asia Pacific is one of the core aims of today's Russian foreign policy. But it should be looked upon in a much broader context – that is within the framework of the US strategic shift to the region overtly announced about a year ago.

Dotted red line shows vast area claimed by China. The PHL, which is claiming some islands, has begun calling the region the West Philippine Sea. GMA News

Indeed, the Asia Pacific, and especially the South China Sea, is becoming a center stage for all global politics. While in other areas the dominant confrontation defining the balance of powers in the world might seem subdued and, to a certain extent, peripheral, the Asia Pacific region demonstrates it unequivocally. This is an area where the US and its allies are balancing on the brink of an open confrontation with China and are actively building muscles and trying to forge as strong an alliance as possible with countries of the region with the sole purpose of containing China.

Sometimes, though, cracks appear within what the US would like to see as an unmarried alliance. Territorial disputes do not happen between "China and all others" (although most cases fall within the formula), but between US staunchest allies in the region – like Japan – South Korea row over Dokdo Islands as they are called in Korean, or Takeshima in Japanese.

It should be noted that the US is not a littoral country iwithn regard to any of the seas where the territorial disputes take place. Still, it is obviously striving to establish its strategic presence there clearly fearing that otherwise the frontline of its standoff with China will shift much farther eastward, up to its own Pacific coast.

Well, now what lies behind Ms. Clinton's call for Russia to take a more proactive role in the regional affairs and even to "complement" the US efforts?

One of the reasons may be the fact that in shifting its attention to the Asia Pacific, the US has tried to consume a much bigger lump than it can swallow and digest.

Another lies in the fact that Washington is definitely unhappy with the state of Russian – Chinese affairs, which despite the strains in the not so distant history, have reached a level of full-scale strategic partnership.

Clearly, by urging Russia to take more active role in the affairs of the region, the US Secretary of State implies that the regional issues should be raised from the bilateral level between the countries involved to a multilateral level, and that, in turn means weakening China's stance and increasing the role of the US, with all others playing a subordinate and secondary role.

This kind of US strategy has borne certain fruit in the recent past. It has managed not only to renovate its strategic cooperation with old-time allies like Singapore, Australia or the Philippines by increasing its military presence in respective countries, but also to bring into the orbit of its policies in the region countries like Vietnam which, not really having too warm of an attitude towards the US, at present face no other option as to rely on it in order to get rid of China's dominance.

And this brings us to the most crucial question – are the countries of the region doomed to side with one of the two major players, or is there a third alternative?

Obviously, some of the problems of Russia's participation in the Asia Pacific affairs are rooted in the failures of Russia's foreign policy of the 1990s, which, among other things, resulted in a certain cooling of relations with its traditional allies in Asia, including primarily Vietnam, India and Mongolia.

But the present framework of the global US – Chinese standoff opens a possibility of a "third way" in global politics, including (and probably, primarily) in the Asia Pacific.

So, one answer that Ms. Clinton must have gotten from her appeal to Russia is the following. Russia WILL play an increasingly more active role, but it remains highly doubtful that this role will "complement" the US efforts. Rather, it is going to be a truly independent policy that would enable Russia as well as other countries not willing to be torn between the two tigers to find a real alternative.

Boris Volkhonsky